• Doctor
  • GP practice

Archived: Dr John William Keen Also known as The Bedford Park Surgery

Overall: Good

The Bedford Park Surgery, 55 South Parade Chiswick, London, W4 5LH (020) 8994 3333

Provided and run by:
Dr John William Keen

The provider of this service changed. See new profile

Latest inspection summary

On this page

Background to this inspection

Updated 13 December 2016

The Bedford Park Surgery is located in Acton in the London Borough of Ealing. The practice provides a general practice service to around 3,500 patients.

The practice is registered as a sole provider with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to provide the regulated activities of: treatment of disease, disorder or injury; diagnostic and screening procedures; family planning services and maternity and midwifery services.

The practice has a General Medical Services (GMS) contract and provides a full range of essential, additional and enhanced services including maternity services, child and adult immunisations, family planning and sexual health services.

The practice has one male GP partner and two salaried GPs working a total of eleven sessions amongst them. The practice has a full time practice manager; the rest of the practice team consists of one part time practice nurse; a full time practice manager; a part time phlebotomist and three administrative staff consisting of medical secretaries, reception staff, clerks and a typist.

The practice is open five days a week from 8am-6:30pm on Mondays to Fridays. The practice offers extended hours on Thursday until 8pm. Consultation times are 8:30am until 12:30pm and 3pm until 6pm.

When the practice is closed, the telephone answering service directs patients to contact the out of hours provider.

Overall inspection

Good

Updated 13 December 2016

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dr John William Keen on 01 November 2016. Overall the practice is rated as good.

Our key findings across all the areas we inspected were as follows:

  • There was an open and transparent approach to safety and an effective system in place for reporting and recording significant events.
  • Risks to patients were assessed and well managed.
  • Staff assessed patients’ needs and delivered care in line with current evidence based guidance. Staff had been trained to provide them with the skills, knowledge and experience to deliver effective care and treatment.
  • Patients said they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and they were involved in their care and decisions about their treatment.
  • Information about services and how to complain was available and easy to understand. Improvements were made to the quality of care as a result of complaints and concerns.
  • Patients said they found it easy to make an appointment with a named GP and there was continuity of care, with urgent appointments available the same day.
  • The practice had good facilities and was well equipped to treat patients and meet their needs.
  • There was a clear leadership structure and staff felt supported by management. The practice proactively sought feedback from staff and patients, which it acted on.
  • The provider was aware of and complied with the requirements of the duty of candour.

The areas where the provider should make improvement are:

  • Consider ways to reduce the clinical exception reporting rate to bring in line with local and national averages.

  • Review and improve the process of identifying patients who are carers.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

People with long term conditions

Good

Updated 13 December 2016

The practice is rated as good for the care of people with long-term conditions.

  • Nursing staff had lead roles in chronic disease management and patients at risk of hospital admission were identified as a priority for support from the nurses.

  • Performance for patients with diabetes, on the register, in whom the last blood test was 62 mmol/mol or less in the preceding 12 months, was comparable to the national average (practice 72%; national 78%). However the practices clinical exception reporting was higher than the CCG and the national averges.The practice were not aware of this and reassured us they would verify their reporting system and take appropriate action if required.

  • Longer appointments and home visits were available when needed.

  • All these patients had a named GP and a structured annual review to check their health and medicines needs were being met. For those patients with the most complex needs, the named GP worked with relevant health and care professionals to deliver a multidisciplinary package of care.

Families, children and young people

Good

Updated 13 December 2016

The practice is rated as good for the care of families, children and young people.

  • There were systems in place to identify and follow up children living in disadvantaged circumstances and who were at risk, for example, children and young people who had a high number of A&E attendances. Immunisation rates were relatively high for all standard childhood immunisations.

  • Patients told us that children and young people were treated in an age-appropriate way and were recognised as individuals, and we saw evidence to confirm this.

  • The practice’s uptake for the cervical screening programme was 83%, which was comparable to the CCG average of 78% and the national average of 82%.

  • Appointments were available outside of school hours and the premises were suitable for children and babies.

  • We saw positive examples of joint working with midwives, health visitors and school nurses.

  • The practice offered parent craft classes for parents free of charge. The purpose of these were to help and guide expectant parents.

Older people

Good

Updated 13 December 2016

The practice is rated as good for the care of older people.

  • The practice offered proactive, personalised care to meet the needs of the older people in its population.

  • The practice was responsive to the needs of older people, and offered home visits and urgent appointments for those with enhanced needs.

Working age people (including those recently retired and students)

Good

Updated 13 December 2016

The practice is rated as good for the care of working-age people (including those recently retired and students).

  • The needs of the working age population, those recently retired and students had been identified and the practice had adjusted the services it offered to ensure these were accessible, flexible and offered continuity of care.

  • The practice was proactive in offering online services as well as a full range of health promotion and screening that reflects the needs for this age group.

People experiencing poor mental health (including people with dementia)

Good

Updated 13 December 2016

The practice is rated as good for the care of people experiencing poor mental health (including people with dementia).

  • 75% of patients diagnosed with dementia who had their care reviewed in a face to face meeting in the last 12 months, which was comparable to the national average. The practice had sixty three patients who were eligible for the screening.

  • The practice regularly worked with multi-disciplinary teams in the case management of patients experiencing poor mental health, including those with dementia.

  • The practice carried out advance care planning for patients with dementia.

  • The practice had told patients experiencing poor mental health about how to access various support groups and voluntary organisations.

  • The practice had a system in place to follow up patients who had attended accident and emergency where they may have been experiencing poor mental health.

  • Staff had a good understanding of how to support patients with mental health needs and dementia.

People whose circumstances may make them vulnerable

Good

Updated 13 December 2016

The practice is rated as good for the care of people whose circumstances may make them vulnerable.

  • The practice held a register of patients living in vulnerable circumstances including homeless people, travellers and those with a learning disability.

  • The practice offered longer appointments for patients with a learning disability.

  • The practice regularly worked with other health care professionals in the case management of vulnerable patients.

  • The practice informed vulnerable patients about how to access various support groups and voluntary organisations.

  • Staff knew how to recognise signs of abuse in vulnerable adults and children. Staff were aware of their responsibilities regarding information sharing, documentation of safeguarding concerns and how to contact relevant agencies in normal working hours and out of hours.